An Inconvenient Electric Bill - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-28-2007, 02:29 PM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
It looks like Graceland. I wonder if Al gets dressed up in spangly jumpsuits around the house

Do you think he shoots the TV if he doesn't like the show?
__________________

__________________
elevated_u2_fan is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 02:33 PM   #227
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Let me assume for a minute that Al Gore is 100% correct...

...Frankly, I don't think we can afford to fix global-warming at this time even if we had the political will, so in the short run, wouldn't adaptation strategies make more sense, until we have the technology needed?
What do you mean by adaptation strategies, and what's your evidence that they'd be cheaper (especially for developing countries)?

You seem to be talking as if taking steps to reduce global warming would be economically disastrous, whereas allowing its results to continue piling up wouldn't be. Which I could understand if you're in fact certain that global warming is complete nonsense, but if you aren't, I don't understand why you seem to be considering only the economic effects of the former.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 02:37 PM   #228
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 11:08 PM
Again it's short sighted to think that by shifting technologies is damaging to the economy. When we shifted from typewriters to computers, we killed the typewriter industry and hurt the paper industry, when we shifted from film to digital cameras, we killed the film camera industry. There were some people who suffered economically but overall people are better off in the long run. There are companies and countries out there that will make billions off new energy technologies whether it be solar panels, innovative water heating methods or improved insulation in homes.

Yes, Canada has failed to reach it's goals because our political system is f**ked right now. They refused to act plus when Alberta's tar sands came online, it really added to our emissions level. And the government is so closely tied to energy companies that they don't have the balls to enact serious legislation. However, it is now a mainstream topic in Canada and the politicians have taken notice that the people in Canada no longer want to be seen as failures regarding green policy. We have laws prohibiting beehive burners in B.C. The company I work for didn't bother getting it replaced because it was cheaper to pay the fines than replace the thing. It has since been replaced but this is the kind of thing that doesn't provide an incentive to business to change. Stage one of Kyoto was never meant to THE solution to climate change, it is the first step to mitigating the effects of human behaviour on the planet. Just as high school diploma doesn't make you a doctor or lawyer but it is the first step in achieving that goal.

Funny how some claim that climate change proponents are using fear to convince people of it's effects while at the same time suggesting the economy will be destroyed if countries move away from traditional fuel sources and conservation of energy. That sounds like a fear tactic to me.

And regardless whether or not the effects of climate change actually happen or not, policies which lead to more efficient and cleaner energy are a good thing, not negative. The argument that we aren't going to be able to give electricity to the poor around the world is ridiculous. With our newfound knowledge in clean energy, we can provide these developing nations with better ways to develop infrastructure without damaging their environments as we have done. In the long run, communities and businesses will save money by using innovative and alternative energy resources. Fixing these problems now is cheaper than trying to fix them later when it is too late.

But God forbid we cause oil profits to shrink, oh no!!
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 03:29 PM   #229
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

What do you mean by adaptation strategies, and what's your evidence that they'd be cheaper (especially for developing countries)?

You seem to be talking as if taking steps to reduce global warming would be economically disastrous, whereas allowing its results to continue piling up wouldn't be. Which I could understand if you're in fact certain that global warming is complete nonsense, but if you aren't, I don't understand why you seem to be considering only the economic effects of the former.
From a Jonah Goldberg article Feb 09
Quote:
Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800 percent, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800 percent is unknowable, but let’s stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is in fact indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious).

That’s still an amazing bargain. Life expectancies in the United States increased from about 47 years to about 77 years. Literacy, medicine, leisure and even, in many respects, the environment have improved mightily over the course of the 20th century, at least in the prosperous West.

Given the option of getting another 1,800 percent richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees warmer, I’d take the heat in a heartbeat. Of course, warming might get more expensive for us (and we might get a lot richer than 1,800 percent too). There are tipping points in every sphere of life, and what cost us little in the 20th century could cost us enormously in the 21st — at least that’s what we’re told.

And boy, are we told. We’re (deceitfully) told polar bears are the canaries in the global coal mine. Al Gore even hosts an apocalyptic infomercial on the subject, complete with fancy renderings of New York City underwater.

Skeptics are heckled for calling attention to global warming scare tactics. But the simple fact is that activists need to hype the threat, and not just because that’s what the media demand of them. Their proposed remedies cost so much money — bidding starts at 1 percent of global GDP a year and rises quickly — they have to ratchet up the fear factor just to get the conversation started.


The costs are just too high for too little payoff. Even if the Kyoto Protocol were put into effect tomorrow — a total impossibility — we’d barely affect global warming. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research speculated in Science magazine that “it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century” to beat back global warming.

Thirty Kyotos! That’s going to be tough considering that China alone plans on building an additional 2,200 coal plants by 2030. Oh, but because China (like India) is exempt from Kyoto as a developing country, the West will just have to reduce its own emissions even more.

A more persuasive cost-benefit analysis hinges not on prophecies of environmental doom but on geopolitics. We buy too much oil from places we shouldn’t, which makes us dependent on nasty regimes and makes those regimes nastier.

Environmentalists like to claim the “energy independence” issue, but it’s not a neat fit. We could be energy independent soon enough with coal and nuclear power. But coal contributes to global warming, and nuclear power is icky. So, instead, we’re going to massively subsidize the government-brewed moonshine called ethanol.

Here again, the benefits barely outweigh the costs. Ethanol requires almost as much energy to make as it provides, and the costs to the environment and the economy may be staggering.

Frankly, I don’t think the trade-off is worth it — yet. The history of capitalism and technology tells us that what starts out expensive and arduous becomes cheap and easy over time.

Lewis and Clark took months to do what a truck carrying Tickle-Me Elmos does every week. Technology 10 years from now could solve global warming at a fraction of today’s costs. What technologies? I don’t know. Maybe fusion. Maybe hydrogen. Maybe we’ll harness the perpetual motion of Sen. Joe Biden’s mouth.

The fact is we can’t afford to fix global warming right now, in part because poor countries want to get rich, too. And rich countries, where the global warming debate is settled, are finding even the first of 30 Kyotos too fiscally onerous. There are no solutions in the realm of the politically possible. So why throw trillions of dollars into “remedies” that even their proponents concede won’t solve the problem?
So why not use our economic strength to develop new energy technologies. Why not work on alternative methods of cooling the Earth (space-mirrors or changing our albedo naturally) other than just drastically reducing CO(2) emissions. And let's direct funds only at those most vulnerable to disease or sea-level changes because, admit it or not, some areas will actually benefit from warming.

Only if the West remains rich and prosperous can we afford to do such things. So no, I don't see increased state control, economic restriction and massive wealth transfers as the cure to the problem. Assuming we actually have a problem of coarse.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 03:38 PM   #230
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:38 PM
It looks like you've gotten every piece of your knowledge on the subject from that exact article.

An article written by a man who has absolutely NO scientific background and has spent his whole career spewing ultra right opinions and nothing else.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 03:41 PM   #231
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


So no, I don't see increased state control, economic restriction and massive wealth transfers as the cure to the problem. Assuming we actually have a problem of coarse.
Can you try and make sense. Who is saying this and where are you getting this from?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 04:09 PM   #232
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

So why not use our economic strength to develop new energy technologies.


because it's more politically expedient (in 2003, at least) to invade Iraq and pretend we're finding WMDs, and then pretending we're brining democracy, and then pretend we're fighting them there so we don't fight them here, when all along -- as has been pointed out to us in long, droning posts -- we're only in Iraq to protect the Saudi Arabian oil fields.

yes, better to keep fucking up the Middle East than develop new energy technologies.

so when are you buying your hybrid?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 04:17 PM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
It looks like you've gotten every piece of your knowledge on the subject from that exact article.

I reckon I can find something better to do than take shit from you.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 04:20 PM   #234
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


I reckon I can find something better to do than take shit from you.


well, would you accept articles on the dangers of eating meat if they were written by Ingrid Newkirk?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 04:25 PM   #235
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


I reckon I can find something better to do than take shit from you.
No, it's just that every point you've brought up in this discussion came directly from that article almost word for word.

And the only reason I give you "shit" is you keep stating conspiracies and attacks and back up none of it.

I've asked you a few questions, that you haven't been able to answer. If that's giving you shit, than I'm sorry for putting you in a corner.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 05:58 PM   #236
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:38 PM


this thread started off highly amusing. now it's pretifying. and once more i am asking myself 'how do you get to this point; believing what you do????' why? how? why?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 06:20 PM   #237
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


this thread started off highly amusing. now it's petrifying. and once more i am asking myself 'how do you get to this point; believing what you do????' why? how? why?
This thread is 16 pages long. Which viewpoint petrifies you?
__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 02-28-2007, 06:33 PM   #238
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:38 PM
geez, where to start. have we had the denial that global warming is a problem yet? the comment that canada should appreciate global warming, cause, you know it snows there and shit, the apparent basing of entire viewpoints on an article, the fighting of common sense... then there's the entire politicising of the issue. i wish everyone could forget fucking al gore for just a minute, but no, we have to look local and argue local. god i can't believe i am referencing paul mccartney... ugh. anyway. in short, what worries me and leaves me utterly dumbfounded is that people firstly deny it's existence and secondly are not in a screaming hurry to fix it. how do you get to complacence on these kinds of things?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 06:44 PM   #239
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 09:38 PM
What I would love to see is politicians stand up and decree that within 10 or 20 years that this country needs to be off or significantly on the way to being off a petroleum based economy. This is a country that was hell bent on being the first on the moon and the goal was achieved within 10 years. Maybe I'm being overly patriotic, optimistic or whatever, but I believe that this country is capable of kicking the oil habit - if we just made it a national priority. We claim to have the best this and that and the best science and ingenuity in the world - lets prove it! or we could just play in the sandbox in the middle east for who knows how long.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 06:56 PM   #240
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Ever been to the Netherlands? They licked that problem a long time ago.

Anyway, don't believe every hyped threat about rising sea levels and accompanying computer animated cartoon that's throw at us. They're just that.
Actually, there's a lively debate going on amongst experts in the Netherlands about how to deal with rising sea levels.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com